There are several reasons explaining Iran’s negative decision. It is true that the nuclear issue has gradually become some kind of symbol of national unity and the regime’s durability in that country. The Iranian population would consider any compromise on the issue to be a step back or the result of American pressure and foreign interference in Iran’s domestic affairs. This could even reinforce the “refusal front” of the presidential elections, stimulating the opposition to the regime, making everything more complicated than it is today. In the case of political instability, Iran can choose to isolate itself more from the foreign world.It appears that one area of friction concerning the deal was about the list of the countries eligible to receive the Iranian uranium. In fact, Iran could very well let a trustworthy country keep its uranium and Turkey was mentioned as a possible destination by the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei. This proposition could have materialized only if he hadn’t suggested Turkey as a possible choice as he is seen as the “Westerners’ man.” Some third parties may have also played a role in stopping Turkey becoming a crucial actor in this issue.
The proposition transmitted to Iran was to send the uranium to Russia and then to France for reprocessing. Iran has probably asked “why France?” Although we overlook the answer, we guess that Iran was not satisfied with it because it has chosen not to send its uranium anywhere. In fact, it is also plausible that France is the country which was opposed to ElBaradei’s Turkey idea because this country believes that the rapprochement between Ankara and Tehran may erode France’s influence in the region. France seemed to be quite unhappy with the possibility that this crisis could be resolved amongst “Easterners.” It is obvious that the issue is no longer about Iran’s nuclear weapons that could hit Israel or other countries one day, causing human tragedies. Now it is about who would obtain the political or financial benefits from the Iranian crisis.
It’s not as though Turkey was insisting on storing Iran’s uranium. Some time ago, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said they would build their nuclear plants in Turkey if the international community did not trust Iran. At the time, Turkey did not give the impression that it was eager to accept that proposal. We should also keep in mind that Turkey, as a NATO member, is not particularly trustworthy for all Iranians. Besides, Turkey can play a positive role in resolving this crisis only if this role does not damage its relationship with the United States. In other words, hosting Iranian nuclear plants or stocking Iranian uranium on Turkish territory is possible only if the US accepts these proposals.
Iran’s refusal may expose it to renewed harsh criticism. Those who have let this crisis reach this level should start worrying. One must explain to Iran why, among all others, only Tehran’s nuclear ambitions are disturbing. In return, Tehran must convince the world of the reasons why it needs nuclear technology this much. It seems that Iran has reached the limits of the benefits it can get from pursuing its nuclear projects. From now on, only those who struggle with each other through Iran will benefit from the situation. Of course, there are those who can actually benefit and those who only hope to benefit.
